> What settlement could Ukraine have with Russia that wouldn't be the end of Ukraine?
Any settlement would've been better than this. Every major city destroyed, 15% of the population emigrated.
Any settlement would've been better than this. Every major city destroyed, 15% of the population emigrated.
Because the only one on the table simply has Ukraine remove its ability to defend itself, and create a Russian client state that Russia will continue to use to wage proxy war on Ukraine until they're entirely within Russia's control.
Appeasing the bully or tyrant leads only to more of the same. From the tyrant's perspective, what they did worked (gial achieved) and the opponents indicated that they are OK with it. Thus, they should try the next step they want.
The reason this invasion happened was because there was no real push-back to the Crimea invasion.
When would you propose that we start fighting back instrad of allowing Russia ti annex ever more - when Lithuania and Poland are being bombed? Berlin & Frankfurt? Paris? London? DC?
The US was looking to buy petroleum from Venezuela. The same Venezuela they were vehemently criticizing and putting economic sanctions because of the ongoing dictatorship over there.
This war is more complex than we think. The world is already in a second cold war and now we have to blocks: the West (US and the EU) vs The East (China and Russia).
We are at "...hard times make strong men..." Cycle now.
Thanks for the high compliment, but although I stand with the Ukrainians, I do not have that heritage. I also do not appreciate your insult to Ukranians as if it would be their take, and their desire for freedom from Russian tyranny is somehow senseless.
>>Do you really think Russia can afford going to war with literally half of the planet? In merely the past few weeks, Russian officials have specifically threatened Lithuania, Estonia, Poland and other areas, literally saying that these are 'historical Russian territories' and should be under Russia's control - the exact same justification for their current 24-Feb-2022 invasion of Ukraine.
Russia was not stopped after Chechnya, Georgia, Syria, Crimea, and other territories. Russia therefore assumes that since these advances were not strongly opposed, that more will be accepted. Since we are now opposing, if we do so successfully (push RUS out of every square inch of UKR territory), it will stop. If we yield, which is what Russia is counting upon, they will go further, at a time of their choosing. Not instantly, but they will not stop. This is being demonstrated at this moment.
>>If that's the case, NATO might as well send preemptive strikes (nukes, etc..) to avoid that scenario or probably Russia could foresee that and strike first since they are currently at war. This is not true and is an unnecessary and counterproductive escalation. Russia has already made lots of nuclear sabre-rattling about various topics such as Finland and Sweden joining NATO, yet been shown to be absolutely toothless. Russia does not want nukewar any more than we do, but they do want us to cower under that threat. The choice is simple, either back down and accept tyranny under their threats, or stand up and face the threat.
Again, Russia will not undertake these ongoing wars instantly but will do so at a time of their choosing. The message we want to send is not that we will wipe you out now, but that your future attempts will result not in the successes you have enjoyed, but only more costly failures.
>>This war is more complex than we think. The world is already in a second cold war ...
Of course this is more complex. IMO, we are already in WWIII and have been since at least 2014.
>>We are at "...hard times make strong men..." Cycle now.
Fully agree. Now is the time to stand up to authoritarianism, or democracy will be lost globally for at least generations, if not centuries or permanently.